Preview
Meghan E. Hill
Direct Tel: 212-326-0808
Direct Fax: 212-326-0806
MHill@PRYORCASHMAN.com
November 15, 2022
VIA NYSCEF
Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C.
Supreme Court of the State of New York
Commercial Division
60 Centre Street
Courtroom 208
New York, New York 10007
Re: Tekiner v. Bremen House Inc. et al., Index No. 657193/2020
Dear Justice Cohen:
We represent Defendants Bremen House, Inc., German News Company, Inc., Berrin
Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner, and Billur Akipek (“Defendants”) in the above-referenced matter. The
parties have consulted with one another, through numerous correspondence, in a good faith but
unsuccessful effort to resolve the following disputes. Accordingly, pursuant to Commercial
Division Rule 14 and Section VI.B of the Part 3 Individual Practices and Procedures, we write to
request a conference. As detailed below, Defendants respectfully request that the Court (1) order
Plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner (“Yasemin”) to produce non-privileged documents she continues to
wrongfully withhold in violation of the Court’s order resolving Motion Sequence 023 (Dkt. 684,
the “August 17 Order”); (2) order Yasemin and co-plaintiff Zeynep Tekiner (“Zeynep” and,
together with Yasemin, “Plaintiffs”) to produce all text messages exchanged between each other
during the depositions of Gonca Tekiner Chelsea, Yasemin Tekiner, and Berrin Tekiner,
completed on October 12, 13 and 14, 2022, respectively.
A. In Violation of this Court’s August 17 Order, Yasemin Continues to
Withhold Responsive Documents Annexed to Emails With Lisa Rubin
In the August 17 Order, the Court held that documents or communication with or including
Lisa Rubin cannot be withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege. Hr’g Tr. August 15, 2022
(Dkt. 685), 61:16-19 (“[T]here are lots of cases out there where people share privileged documents
with friends and family members, and it’s simply a waiver. So the motion to compel is granted.”)
On September 20, 2022, Yasemin produced 105 previously-withheld documents that
included Ms. Rubin. However, Yasemin continues to withhold—and, despite repeated inquiry
Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C.
November 15, 2022
Page 2
from Defendants, refuses to produce—twenty-seven documents1 attached to emails transmitted to
Ms. Rubin. Yasemin’s sole justification for this failure is her claim that because Defendants did
not specifically itemize these attachments by privilege log number in their motion to compel,
Defendants “have no right to demand them now.”
This disingenuous argument should be rejected. These twenty-seven documents are
indisputably responsive to Defendants’ document requests, are not shielded from production on
the basis of any privilege, and therefore must be produced. It is entirely irrelevant whether or not
Defendants specifically identified these documents by privilege log number in their motion papers.
By Yasemin’s logic, a party would have no obligation to produce any document that was not
specifically the subject of a motion to compel. Yasemin’s attempt to flout her discovery
obligations should not be countenanced.
B. Personal Communications Exchanged Between Yasemin and Zeynep
Regarding this Action are Not Privileged and Must Be Produced
During the depositions of Yasemin and Zeynep, Defendants’ counsel demanded the
production of all text messages exchanged between Yasemin Tekiner and Zeynep Tekiner during
the depositions of Gonca Tekiner Chelsea, Berrin Tekiner, and Yasemin Tekiner (the
“Depositions”). Plaintiffs first objected to such disclosure on the basis that the messages are
“attorney work product,” before pivoting to the rationale that the messages are protected by a
purported “joint interest agreement” in place between Plaintiffs. Both of these arguments are
without merit.
Initially, it is fundamental that the work product privilege “applies only to documents
prepared by counsel acting as such.” Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 23 A.D.3d
190, 190 (1st Dep’t 2005). The demanded text messages were “prepared” by Yasemin and Zeynep,
not by counsel, and thus no work product privilege can or does apply to those communications.
There is also no legitimacy to Plaintiffs’ position that the text messages are protected from
disclosure pursuant to a joint interest agreement. Before a communication may be protected from
discovery under the common (or “joint”) interest rule, the communication must satisfy the
requirements of the attorney-client privilege. See San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Morgan Stanley
Senior Funding, Inc., 136 A.D.3d 547, 548 (2016) (“The common interest privilege . . . requires
that the communication otherwise qualify for protection under the attorney-client privilege and
that itbe made for the purpose of furthering a legal interest or strategy common to the parties
asserting it.”); In re Out-of-State subpoenas issued by New York Couns. for State of California
Franchise Tax Bd., 33 Misc. 3d 500, 516 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (common interest rule applies to
1
According to Plaintiff’s privilege log, “attorney-client privilege” is the sole basis for withholding these documents,
all of which are attachments to emails that the Court has ruled are not privileged. A complete list is annexed as
Schedule A.
Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C.
November 15, 2022
Page 3
“communications between counsel and parties with respect to legal advice . . . It does not protect
. . . personal communications.”) (emphasis added).
The text messages exchanged between Plaintiffs plainly do not satisfy those requirements.
Yasemin and Zeynep have testified that they communicated with each other during the
Depositions, including commentary regarding “how much [Gonca was] lying.” Any asserted
common interest cannot protect these “personal communications” exchanged by Plaintiffs during
the Depositions, and Defendants are entitled to their immediate disclosure.2
Defendants reserve all rights and remedies, none of which are hereby waived.
Very truly yours,
Meghan E. Hill
cc: Counsel of Record (via NYSCEF)
2
Even if the Court does not order thatthese text messages should not be produced immediately, Defendants
respectfully request an order directing Plaintiffs to provide (i) a privilege log identifying the date, time, sender and
recipient of each text message communication that Plaintiffs are withholding based on these erroneous privilege
claims, and (ii) the allegedly applicable joint interest agreement.
SCHEDULE A – COMPLETE LIST OF ALL WRONGFULLY WITHHELD
DOCUMENTS
Document ID Description Privilege
1 REV00065375 Draft document attached to a privileged communication Atty/Client
reflecting legal advice regarding books and records request
2 REV00066317 Document attached to privileged communication providing Atty/Client
or requesting information for purposes of providing legal
advice concerning Company finances and management
3 REV00066471 Document attached to a privileged communication providing Atty/Client
information for purposes of providing legal advice
concerning Company finances and management
4 REV00066472 Document attached to a privileged communication providing Atty/Client
information for purposes of providing legal advice
concerning Company finances and management
5 REV00066473 Document attached to a privileged communication providing Atty/Client
information for purposes of providing legal advice
concerning Company finances and management
6 REV00066474 Document attached to a privileged communication providing Atty/Client
information for purposes of providing legal advice
concerning Company finances and management
7 REV00066584 Document attached to a privileged communication providing Atty/Client
information for pd
8 REV00066948 Document attached to a privileged communication providing Atty/Client
information for purposes of providing legal advice
concerning Company finances and management
9 REV00066949 Document attached to a privileged communication providing Atty/Client
information for purposes of providing legal advice
concerning Company finances and management
10 REV00066950 Document attached to a privileged communication providing Atty/Client
information for purposes of providing legal advice
concerning Company finances and management
11 REV00073791 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client
providing legal advice concerning trusts
12 REV00073792 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client
providing legal advice concerning trusts
13 REV00073793 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client
providing legal advice concerning trusts
14 REV00073794 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client
providing legal advice concerning trusts
15 REV00073795 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client
providing legal advice concerning trusts
16 REV00073796 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client
providing legal advice concerning trusts
17 REV00208102 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client
providing legal advice concerning Company finances and
management
SCHEDULE A – COMPLETE LIST OF ALL WRONGFULLY WITHHELD
DOCUMENTS
Document ID Description Privilege
18 REV00208103 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client
providing legal advice concerning Company finances and
management
19 REV00208104 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client
providing legal advice concerning Company finances and
management
20 REV00208105 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client
providing legal advice concerning Company finances and
management
21 REV00208106 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client
providing legal advice concerning Company finances and
management
22 REV00208107 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client
providing legal advice concerning Company finances and
management
23 REV00208108 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client
providing legal advice concerning Company finances and
management
24 REV00208109 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client
providing legal advice concerning Company finances and
management
25 REV00208110 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client
providing legal advice concerning Company finances and
management
26 REV00208111 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client
providing legal advice concerning Company finances and
management
27 REV00208112 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client
providing legal advice concerning Company finances and
management
Writer’s Direct Contact:
908.333.6220 (Tel.)
PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP 212.596.7036 (Fax)
scott.parker@piblaw.com
www.piblaw.com
November 21, 2022
VIA NYSCEF
Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C.
Supreme Court of the State of New York
60 Centre Street
Courtroom 208
New York, New York 10007
Re: Yasemin Tekiner, et al. v. Bremen House Inc., et al.
Index No.: 657193/2020
Dear Justice Cohen:
The undersigned represents Plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner (“Yasemin”) in the above-
referenced action against Defendants Bremen House, Inc., German News Company, Inc., Berrin
Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner, and Billur Akipek (collectively “Defendants”). We write in response to
Defendants’ letter of November 15, 2022 requesting a conference and an order (1) compelling
Yasemin to produce numerous documents that Defendants did not seek in a prior discovery motion
and (2) compelling Yasemin and Plaintiff Zeynep Tekiner (“Zeynep”) to produce privileged
communications regarding their common legal interest in this litigation. For the reasons set forth
below, that request should be denied.
A. Defendants’ Motion Did Not Seek Attachments to Messages on Which Lisa
Rubin Was Copied, and Defendants Are Not in Violation of this Court’s
August 17th Order
Defendants previously moved to compel production of correspondence between Yasemin
and her counsel on which Lisa Rubin, Yasemin’s long-time partner and fiancé, was copied. (Mot.
Seq. No. 023.) Using the Bates numbers from Yasemin’s privilege log, the motion specifically
identified exactly which individual documents were sought. Those numbers correspond to emails
that have since been produced in good faith and in compliance with the Court’s order granting the
motion. Defendants excluded from the extensive list in their motion papers the Bates numbers for
any attachments to the emails. Consequently, such attachments do not fall within the scope of the
relief requested by Defendants or granted by the Court. Yasemin, therefore, should not be
compelled to produce them.
B. The Common-Interest Rule Exempts from Discovery the Communications
Between the Plaintiffs to This Action That the Defendants Are Seeking
Defendants also seek messages between Yasemin and Zeynep regarding recent depositions
in this case. Due to the common claims they are asserting against Defendants and their common
interest in the outcome of this litigation, communications between Yasemin and Zeynep
concerning the case are privileged.
New York Office: 5 Penn Plaza, Suite 2371 – New York, New York 10001 – 212.596.7037
New Jersey Office: 270 Davidson Avenue – Somerset, New Jersey 08873 – 908.725.9700
BOSTON – NEW JERSEY – NEW YORK – ORANGE COUNTY – PHILADELPHIA
Recognizing that the public interest is served by “shielding certain communications,”
courts in New York afford a conditional privilege to communications “made by one person to
another upon a subject in which both have an interest.” (U.S. Bank National Association v. APP
Int’l. Finance Co., 33 AD3d 430, 431 [1st Dep’t 2006]; see also 330 Acquisition Co., LLC v.
Regency Savings Bank, F.S.B., 12 AD2d 214 [1st Dep’t 2004] [communications between the
plaintiff and a non-party were subject to “the attorney-client common interest privilege” due to
their “common legal interest”]; 21st Century Diamond, LLC v. Allfield Trading, LLC, 142 AD3d
913, 914 [1st Dep’t 2016] [privilege not waived between defendant and non-party with common-
interest agreement].) The privilege applies “where an ‘interlocking relationship’ or a ‘limited
common purpose’ necessitates disclosure to certain parties.” GUS Consulting GmbH v.
Chadbourne & Parke LLP, 20 Misc3d 539, 542 [Sup Ct NY Cty 2008].
Here, Yasemin and Zeynep are the plaintiffs in a consolidated action in which they are
pursuing substantively identical claims against the same defendants. Moreover, as the docket
entries for this case reflect, they have both worked extensively with counsel – and their attorneys
have worked in collaboration to pursue Yasemin’s and Zeynep’s claims. Accordingly, any
communications between them about this case are necessarily informed by their privileged
communications with counsel regarding matters in which they unquestionably share a common
legal interest. Privilege, therefore, should extend to the messages sought. Alternatively, they
should be submitted for an in camera inspection to determine the extent to which any might be
subject to discovery. See U.S. Bank, supra; see also Harris v. Charlie Rose Inc., 2021 NY Slip
Op 31146[U], at *3 [Sup Ct NY Cty 2021] (“Communications protected by the common-interest
privilege include those pertaining to pending or reasonably anticipated litigation, [including]
communications between co-defendants, co-plaintiffs…”) (citing Ambac Assur. Corp. v
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 27 NY3d 616, 627 [2016]; Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian
Holdings, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 30062[U], at *14-15 [Sup Ct NY Cty 2019] (“The common
interest doctrine can apply where the communication at issue is between two parties who are co-
defendants outside the presence of attorneys.”).
Respectfully submitted,
Scott W. Parker
cc: Stephen P. Younger, Esq. (via NYSCEF)
Michele Kahn, Esq. (via NYSCEF)
Meghan E. Hill, Esq. (via NYSCEF)
2
Preview
Meghan E. Hill Direct Tel: 212-326-0808 Direct Fax: 212-326-0806 MHill@PRYORCASHMAN.com November 15, 2022 VIA NYSCEF Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C. Supreme Court of the State of New York Commercial Division 60 Centre Street Courtroom 208 New York, New York 10007 Re: Tekiner v. Bremen House Inc. et al., Index No. 657193/2020 Dear Justice Cohen: We represent Defendants Bremen House, Inc., German News Company, Inc., Berrin Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner, and Billur Akipek (“Defendants”) in the above-referenced matter. The parties have consulted with one another, through numerous correspondence, in a good faith but unsuccessful effort to resolve the following disputes. Accordingly, pursuant to Commercial Division Rule 14 and Section VI.B of the Part 3 Individual Practices and Procedures, we write to request a conference. As detailed below, Defendants respectfully request that the Court (1) order Plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner (“Yasemin”) to produce non-privileged documents she continues to wrongfully withhold in violation of the Court’s order resolving Motion Sequence 023 (Dkt. 684, the “August 17 Order”); (2) order Yasemin and co-plaintiff Zeynep Tekiner (“Zeynep” and, together with Yasemin, “Plaintiffs”) to produce all text messages exchanged between each other during the depositions of Gonca Tekiner Chelsea, Yasemin Tekiner, and Berrin Tekiner, completed on October 12, 13 and 14, 2022, respectively. A. In Violation of this Court’s August 17 Order, Yasemin Continues to Withhold Responsive Documents Annexed to Emails With Lisa Rubin In the August 17 Order, the Court held that documents or communication with or including Lisa Rubin cannot be withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege. Hr’g Tr. August 15, 2022 (Dkt. 685), 61:16-19 (“[T]here are lots of cases out there where people share privileged documents with friends and family members, and it’s simply a waiver. So the motion to compel is granted.”) On September 20, 2022, Yasemin produced 105 previously-withheld documents that included Ms. Rubin. However, Yasemin continues to withhold—and, despite repeated inquiry Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C. November 15, 2022 Page 2 from Defendants, refuses to produce—twenty-seven documents1 attached to emails transmitted to Ms. Rubin. Yasemin’s sole justification for this failure is her claim that because Defendants did not specifically itemize these attachments by privilege log number in their motion to compel, Defendants “have no right to demand them now.” This disingenuous argument should be rejected. These twenty-seven documents are indisputably responsive to Defendants’ document requests, are not shielded from production on the basis of any privilege, and therefore must be produced. It is entirely irrelevant whether or not Defendants specifically identified these documents by privilege log number in their motion papers. By Yasemin’s logic, a party would have no obligation to produce any document that was not specifically the subject of a motion to compel. Yasemin’s attempt to flout her discovery obligations should not be countenanced. B. Personal Communications Exchanged Between Yasemin and Zeynep Regarding this Action are Not Privileged and Must Be Produced During the depositions of Yasemin and Zeynep, Defendants’ counsel demanded the production of all text messages exchanged between Yasemin Tekiner and Zeynep Tekiner during the depositions of Gonca Tekiner Chelsea, Berrin Tekiner, and Yasemin Tekiner (the “Depositions”). Plaintiffs first objected to such disclosure on the basis that the messages are “attorney work product,” before pivoting to the rationale that the messages are protected by a purported “joint interest agreement” in place between Plaintiffs. Both of these arguments are without merit. Initially, it is fundamental that the work product privilege “applies only to documents prepared by counsel acting as such.” Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 23 A.D.3d 190, 190 (1st Dep’t 2005). The demanded text messages were “prepared” by Yasemin and Zeynep, not by counsel, and thus no work product privilege can or does apply to those communications. There is also no legitimacy to Plaintiffs’ position that the text messages are protected from disclosure pursuant to a joint interest agreement. Before a communication may be protected from discovery under the common (or “joint”) interest rule, the communication must satisfy the requirements of the attorney-client privilege. See San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., 136 A.D.3d 547, 548 (2016) (“The common interest privilege . . . requires that the communication otherwise qualify for protection under the attorney-client privilege and that itbe made for the purpose of furthering a legal interest or strategy common to the parties asserting it.”); In re Out-of-State subpoenas issued by New York Couns. for State of California Franchise Tax Bd., 33 Misc. 3d 500, 516 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (common interest rule applies to 1 According to Plaintiff’s privilege log, “attorney-client privilege” is the sole basis for withholding these documents, all of which are attachments to emails that the Court has ruled are not privileged. A complete list is annexed as Schedule A. Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C. November 15, 2022 Page 3 “communications between counsel and parties with respect to legal advice . . . It does not protect . . . personal communications.”) (emphasis added). The text messages exchanged between Plaintiffs plainly do not satisfy those requirements. Yasemin and Zeynep have testified that they communicated with each other during the Depositions, including commentary regarding “how much [Gonca was] lying.” Any asserted common interest cannot protect these “personal communications” exchanged by Plaintiffs during the Depositions, and Defendants are entitled to their immediate disclosure.2 Defendants reserve all rights and remedies, none of which are hereby waived. Very truly yours, Meghan E. Hill cc: Counsel of Record (via NYSCEF) 2 Even if the Court does not order thatthese text messages should not be produced immediately, Defendants respectfully request an order directing Plaintiffs to provide (i) a privilege log identifying the date, time, sender and recipient of each text message communication that Plaintiffs are withholding based on these erroneous privilege claims, and (ii) the allegedly applicable joint interest agreement. SCHEDULE A – COMPLETE LIST OF ALL WRONGFULLY WITHHELD DOCUMENTS Document ID Description Privilege 1 REV00065375 Draft document attached to a privileged communication Atty/Client reflecting legal advice regarding books and records request 2 REV00066317 Document attached to privileged communication providing Atty/Client or requesting information for purposes of providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management 3 REV00066471 Document attached to a privileged communication providing Atty/Client information for purposes of providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management 4 REV00066472 Document attached to a privileged communication providing Atty/Client information for purposes of providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management 5 REV00066473 Document attached to a privileged communication providing Atty/Client information for purposes of providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management 6 REV00066474 Document attached to a privileged communication providing Atty/Client information for purposes of providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management 7 REV00066584 Document attached to a privileged communication providing Atty/Client information for pd 8 REV00066948 Document attached to a privileged communication providing Atty/Client information for purposes of providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management 9 REV00066949 Document attached to a privileged communication providing Atty/Client information for purposes of providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management 10 REV00066950 Document attached to a privileged communication providing Atty/Client information for purposes of providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management 11 REV00073791 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client providing legal advice concerning trusts 12 REV00073792 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client providing legal advice concerning trusts 13 REV00073793 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client providing legal advice concerning trusts 14 REV00073794 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client providing legal advice concerning trusts 15 REV00073795 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client providing legal advice concerning trusts 16 REV00073796 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client providing legal advice concerning trusts 17 REV00208102 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management SCHEDULE A – COMPLETE LIST OF ALL WRONGFULLY WITHHELD DOCUMENTS Document ID Description Privilege 18 REV00208103 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management 19 REV00208104 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management 20 REV00208105 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management 21 REV00208106 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management 22 REV00208107 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management 23 REV00208108 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management 24 REV00208109 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management 25 REV00208110 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management 26 REV00208111 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management 27 REV00208112 Document provided at request of counsel for purposes of Atty/Client providing legal advice concerning Company finances and management Writer’s Direct Contact: 908.333.6220 (Tel.) PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP 212.596.7036 (Fax) scott.parker@piblaw.com www.piblaw.com November 21, 2022 VIA NYSCEF Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C. Supreme Court of the State of New York 60 Centre Street Courtroom 208 New York, New York 10007 Re: Yasemin Tekiner, et al. v. Bremen House Inc., et al. Index No.: 657193/2020 Dear Justice Cohen: The undersigned represents Plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner (“Yasemin”) in the above- referenced action against Defendants Bremen House, Inc., German News Company, Inc., Berrin Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner, and Billur Akipek (collectively “Defendants”). We write in response to Defendants’ letter of November 15, 2022 requesting a conference and an order (1) compelling Yasemin to produce numerous documents that Defendants did not seek in a prior discovery motion and (2) compelling Yasemin and Plaintiff Zeynep Tekiner (“Zeynep”) to produce privileged communications regarding their common legal interest in this litigation. For the reasons set forth below, that request should be denied. A. Defendants’ Motion Did Not Seek Attachments to Messages on Which Lisa Rubin Was Copied, and Defendants Are Not in Violation of this Court’s August 17th Order Defendants previously moved to compel production of correspondence between Yasemin and her counsel on which Lisa Rubin, Yasemin’s long-time partner and fiancé, was copied. (Mot. Seq. No. 023.) Using the Bates numbers from Yasemin’s privilege log, the motion specifically identified exactly which individual documents were sought. Those numbers correspond to emails that have since been produced in good faith and in compliance with the Court’s order granting the motion. Defendants excluded from the extensive list in their motion papers the Bates numbers for any attachments to the emails. Consequently, such attachments do not fall within the scope of the relief requested by Defendants or granted by the Court. Yasemin, therefore, should not be compelled to produce them. B. The Common-Interest Rule Exempts from Discovery the Communications Between the Plaintiffs to This Action That the Defendants Are Seeking Defendants also seek messages between Yasemin and Zeynep regarding recent depositions in this case. Due to the common claims they are asserting against Defendants and their common interest in the outcome of this litigation, communications between Yasemin and Zeynep concerning the case are privileged. New York Office: 5 Penn Plaza, Suite 2371 – New York, New York 10001 – 212.596.7037 New Jersey Office: 270 Davidson Avenue – Somerset, New Jersey 08873 – 908.725.9700 BOSTON – NEW JERSEY – NEW YORK – ORANGE COUNTY – PHILADELPHIA Recognizing that the public interest is served by “shielding certain communications,” courts in New York afford a conditional privilege to communications “made by one person to another upon a subject in which both have an interest.” (U.S. Bank National Association v. APP Int’l. Finance Co., 33 AD3d 430, 431 [1st Dep’t 2006]; see also 330 Acquisition Co., LLC v. Regency Savings Bank, F.S.B., 12 AD2d 214 [1st Dep’t 2004] [communications between the plaintiff and a non-party were subject to “the attorney-client common interest privilege” due to their “common legal interest”]; 21st Century Diamond, LLC v. Allfield Trading, LLC, 142 AD3d 913, 914 [1st Dep’t 2016] [privilege not waived between defendant and non-party with common- interest agreement].) The privilege applies “where an ‘interlocking relationship’ or a ‘limited common purpose’ necessitates disclosure to certain parties.” GUS Consulting GmbH v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP, 20 Misc3d 539, 542 [Sup Ct NY Cty 2008]. Here, Yasemin and Zeynep are the plaintiffs in a consolidated action in which they are pursuing substantively identical claims against the same defendants. Moreover, as the docket entries for this case reflect, they have both worked extensively with counsel – and their attorneys have worked in collaboration to pursue Yasemin’s and Zeynep’s claims. Accordingly, any communications between them about this case are necessarily informed by their privileged communications with counsel regarding matters in which they unquestionably share a common legal interest. Privilege, therefore, should extend to the messages sought. Alternatively, they should be submitted for an in camera inspection to determine the extent to which any might be subject to discovery. See U.S. Bank, supra; see also Harris v. Charlie Rose Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 31146[U], at *3 [Sup Ct NY Cty 2021] (“Communications protected by the common-interest privilege include those pertaining to pending or reasonably anticipated litigation, [including] communications between co-defendants, co-plaintiffs…”) (citing Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 27 NY3d 616, 627 [2016]; Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 30062[U], at *14-15 [Sup Ct NY Cty 2019] (“The common interest doctrine can apply where the communication at issue is between two parties who are co- defendants outside the presence of attorneys.”). Respectfully submitted, Scott W. Parker cc: Stephen P. Younger, Esq. (via NYSCEF) Michele Kahn, Esq. (via NYSCEF) Meghan E. Hill, Esq. (via NYSCEF) 2